No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Antiquities compared
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2015
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0003598X00092024/resource/name/firstPage-S0003598X00092024.jpg)
- Type
- Special section: Celebrating 75 years of Antiquity
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2002
References
Binford, L.R.
1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process, American Antiquity
31: 203–10.Google Scholar
Eerkens, J.
2002. Trends in the geographic focus of American archaeology: an analysis of American Antiquity articles and Ph.D dissertations. Manuscript in possession of author.Google Scholar
Fustel De Coulanges, N.D.
1980. The ancient city: a study on the religion, laws, and institutions of Greece and Rome. (Originally published 1864 as La cité antique.) Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutson, S.R.
2001. Synergy through disunity, science as socialpractice: comments on VanPool and VanPool, American Antiquity
66: 349–60.Google Scholar
Lehner, P. & Julen, A.
1991. A man’s bones with 16th-century weapons and coins in a glacier near Zermatt, Switzerland,Antiquity
65: 269–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Leeuw, S. & Redman, C.L.
2002. Placing archaeology at the center of socio-natural studies, American Antiquity
67: 597–605.Google Scholar